No, I just know what words mean and have a fairly decent knowledge of policy each has championed. Trumps never passed legislation restricting free speech, actively combined government and corporate power in a very Mussolini way, frozen his political opponents bank accounts and removed the need for probable cause in exchange for the whim of the police. Trudeau has.
Okay well first Fascism and fascism are different. You’re talking about Fascism.
In the same way America is a Republic and we have democracies.
So back the point Trump is a fascist which is worse than a Fascist.
Mussolini is a Fascist, that was his political beliefs and platform.
Hitler is a fascist in the way he wielded government power much like Trump i.e. overthrowing the government, cult of personality, expression of hateful nationalism (nativism), “might is right” type rule.
The big issue here is Trump isn’t a Fascist because he has no government platform, how can he be anything when he stands for nothing?
He is a fascist in the way he presented his presidency.
Case and point: Insurrection, St.John’s Church, every time he expressed violence rhetoric.
I have no horse in this race, but as an Italian, I think you are actually misusing the word. Your explanation also showed that, when you called fascism (honestly, there is no distinction with capital letter…) a platform.
Fascism is a method to conduct politics, it’s not an ideology per se.
In general, it’s a violent way to impose political decisions, which entails the suppression of political opposition with violence, repression, censoring and suppression of freedoms, a cult of the state which embodies the authority, a call to tradition and religion etc. While there are these common traits, there is not really a common base ideology on top of which fascist governments through history have based their politics. Franco in Spain was different from Mussolini, who was different from Hitler.
Under this lens, one could argue that Trump can still be seen as a fascist, I guess. I personally find it easier to use the term for Orban in Hungary, for example, or for Putin.
There is absolutely a difference for fascism and Fascism. Google it, look in any dictionary, Wikipedia. This is a thing historians and political scientists understand.
The Fascism movement is where we get the word, from Mussolini’s Fascist movement. When you capitalize it you are talking about the proper noun Fascism as a movement, you are talking about a very specific identifiable and isolated thing. Mussolini’s movement
But fascism as a concept moved beyond that movement. It is not limited to Fascism and in fact doesn’t even entirely match with Fascism. These are just truths not my opinion.
The guy I’m talking to doesn’t understand either and clearly hasn’t googled them at the minimum. He doesn’t understand it and that is the entire point, this man wouldn’t know a fascist if he voted for one.
The word has seen an expansion of meaning already after WWII. It’s totally normal today to refer with fascism to traits of the historical fascist movements, without referring specifically to them.
We invented the word, unfortunately, and this distinction is nowhere to be seen.
seguace, sostenitore del fascismo, come movimento politico italiano del periodo tra le due guerre mondiali: un f. della prima ora, un f. antemarcia; un f. convinto, un fervente f., una f. fanatica; anche, semplicem., chi era iscritto al partito. In senso più ampio, chi, anche dopo la caduta del fascismo, si fa (in Italia o in altri paesi) banditore, fautore o seguace di concezioni e metodi proprî del fascismo
My rough translation:
Follower, supporter of fascism as an Italian political movement during the period between the two world wars: [examples], also, simply who was a member of the party. In a wider sense who, even after the fall of fascism, advertises (in Italy or abroad), enforces or follows conceptions and methods belonging to fascism.
That’s pretty much the same as the meaning 2 in the Merriam-Webster, although that definition is very diluted and just mentions “autocratic or dictatorial control”.
So at this point it seems the capitalization is just an English thing (makes absolutely no sense for me), but the underlying concept is pretty much the same, even though it seems in English the word is less specific than it is in Italian (which is a shame IMO).
No, I just know what words mean and have a fairly decent knowledge of policy each has championed. Trumps never passed legislation restricting free speech, actively combined government and corporate power in a very Mussolini way, frozen his political opponents bank accounts and removed the need for probable cause in exchange for the whim of the police. Trudeau has.
Okay well first Fascism and fascism are different. You’re talking about Fascism.
In the same way America is a Republic and we have democracies.
So back the point Trump is a fascist which is worse than a Fascist.
Mussolini is a Fascist, that was his political beliefs and platform.
Hitler is a fascist in the way he wielded government power much like Trump i.e. overthrowing the government, cult of personality, expression of hateful nationalism (nativism), “might is right” type rule.
The big issue here is Trump isn’t a Fascist because he has no government platform, how can he be anything when he stands for nothing?
He is a fascist in the way he presented his presidency.
Case and point: Insurrection, St.John’s Church, every time he expressed violence rhetoric.
(That’s an authoritarian. Hitler and Mussolini were very, very similar politically, both Fascists. (it’s the same word capitilized or not))
No it isn’t you don’t know the word. Google it. Capitalizing it does matter.
Trump is a fascist. Trudeau is not a fascist. If you don’t understand that, then that is that.
I have no horse in this race, but as an Italian, I think you are actually misusing the word. Your explanation also showed that, when you called fascism (honestly, there is no distinction with capital letter…) a platform. Fascism is a method to conduct politics, it’s not an ideology per se. In general, it’s a violent way to impose political decisions, which entails the suppression of political opposition with violence, repression, censoring and suppression of freedoms, a cult of the state which embodies the authority, a call to tradition and religion etc. While there are these common traits, there is not really a common base ideology on top of which fascist governments through history have based their politics. Franco in Spain was different from Mussolini, who was different from Hitler.
Under this lens, one could argue that Trump can still be seen as a fascist, I guess. I personally find it easier to use the term for Orban in Hungary, for example, or for Putin.
There is absolutely a difference for fascism and Fascism. Google it, look in any dictionary, Wikipedia. This is a thing historians and political scientists understand.
The Fascism movement is where we get the word, from Mussolini’s Fascist movement. When you capitalize it you are talking about the proper noun Fascism as a movement, you are talking about a very specific identifiable and isolated thing. Mussolini’s movement
But fascism as a concept moved beyond that movement. It is not limited to Fascism and in fact doesn’t even entirely match with Fascism. These are just truths not my opinion.
The guy I’m talking to doesn’t understand either and clearly hasn’t googled them at the minimum. He doesn’t understand it and that is the entire point, this man wouldn’t know a fascist if he voted for one.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_fascism
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fascism
https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803095811414
The word has seen an expansion of meaning already after WWII. It’s totally normal today to refer with fascism to traits of the historical fascist movements, without referring specifically to them.
We invented the word, unfortunately, and this distinction is nowhere to be seen.
https://www.treccani.it/vocabolario/fascista/ (you can translate).
My rough translation: Follower, supporter of fascism as an Italian political movement during the period between the two world wars: [examples], also, simply who was a member of the party. In a wider sense who, even after the fall of fascism, advertises (in Italy or abroad), enforces or follows conceptions and methods belonging to fascism.
That’s pretty much the same as the meaning 2 in the Merriam-Webster, although that definition is very diluted and just mentions “autocratic or dictatorial control”.
So at this point it seems the capitalization is just an English thing (makes absolutely no sense for me), but the underlying concept is pretty much the same, even though it seems in English the word is less specific than it is in Italian (which is a shame IMO).